W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > March 2010

Re: Linked Data

From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <347094.33800.qm@web112610.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
To: "public-egov-ig@w3.org" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
One would expect to find the owner's data on the "top of the heap", in HTML there it is, but in RDF the "heap" looks the same from top to bottom.  RDF Schema are normally written with scope description first, but that is a convention, not a rule.  A query needs "select", but "order by, having", not so much.
--Gannon
--- On Thu, 3/18/10, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: Linked Data
> To: "Gannon Dick" <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>, "public-egov-ig@w3.org" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
> Date: Thursday, March 18, 2010, 8:33 PM
> I would guess I am missing something,
> but...
> 
> In the Linked Data world, that is actually the whole
> point.
> Given a data URI, there is a very clear and well understood
> mechanism that
> is supported by almost every server connected to the
> internet: http.
> This provides any system that can do an http query with a
> way of
> programmatically accessing the metadata about the
> resource.
> Mind you, if you want to discuss the format of the data
> returned from the
> Linked Data URI, then that would be a different department
> (and also very
> relevant).
> 
> So if you want to find the metadata about a resource that
> is published by
> the resource owner, then that is possibly one of the few
> things that is well
> understood.
> 
> Best Hugh
> 
> On 18/03/2010 22:05, "Gannon Dick" <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > CC wrote:
> > On the demo call today we discussed a couple of
> technical issues that
> > impact but are not specific to government.  These
> are:
> > 
> > 1)       That given a data
> URI, there is no standard way to
> > programmatically access the metadata about the
> resource.
> > 
> > Sandro wrote: (can't find the exact quote)
> > -The RDF model is the only one we (the W3C) have.-
> > 
> > I also looked at the DERI.ORG sitemap
> extensions.  The explanations were well
> > worth the read.  The potential problem I see with
> extending sitemap is that it
> > disconnects linked data from it's RDF and (Collection
> of) Human Readable HTML
> > parts - 1 site=1 Database - and if you had more than
> one <owl:Thing> to share
> > it could get very complicated.  Therein lies the
> rub.
> > 
> > For reasons stated here:
> > http://www.rustprivacy.org/2010/meta/linked-data.pdf
> > with an example here:
> > http://www.rustprivacy.org/2010/meta/linked-data.xml
> > or for the bold:
> > http://www.rustprivacy.org/2010/meta/linked-data.xsl
> (on valid XHTML)
> > 
> > I think the complexity is in the nature of meta data
> and not in the sitemap
> > mechanism.  However, I could really, really
> really use some feedback from the
> > W3C and deri.org.
> > 
> > --Gannon 
> > 
> > 
> >       
> > 
> 
> 


      
Received on Friday, 19 March 2010 02:53:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 19 March 2010 02:53:43 GMT